Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 152 references

Heterogeneous networks in drug-target interaction prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that graph-based machine learning on heterogeneous biological networks has become the core tool for drug-target interaction prediction, and maps the 2020–2024 literature into four method families with datasets, metrics…

desk verdict A serviceable but under-documented narrative survey of graph-based DTI prediction; the taxonomy is useful, the 'comprehensive' claim is not backed by a search protocol, and the 97% performance assertion needs a citation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16152 v2 pith:LP4T6VHY submitted 2025-04-22 q-bio.BM cs.AIcs.LG

Mohammad Molaee , Nasrollah Moghadam Charkari , Foad Ghaderi This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMcs.AIcs.LG
keywords drug-targetinteractionpredictionheterogeneousnetworksgraphneuralmetapathrandomwalkbindingaffinitydrugrepurposingsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey tries to establish that graph-based machine learning, especially methods built on heterogeneous networks that join drugs, proteins, diseases, and side effects, is now central to computational drug-target interaction (DTI) prediction. It maps the 2020–2024 literature into four method families—random-walk embeddings, graph neural networks (GNNs), metapath-based methods, and hybrids—and gives each method's framework, main contribution, benchmark dataset, and source code. The authors argue this coverage is wider than earlier network-based reviews, and they identify future priorities: richer multimodal benchmark data, cross-dataset generalization, interpretability, uncertainty estimation, and the use of predicted protein 3D structure. A sympathetic reader comes away with an organized orientation to the field and its open problems.

What carries the argument

The survey's organizing device is a taxonomy of network-based methods built on heterogeneous information networks, defined as graphs $G=(V,E)$ with node-type and edge-type mappings. The conceptual machinery includes metapaths (typed paths such as protein–disease–drug), metagraphs formed by metapath-based neighbors, random-walk embedding methods such as node2vec and DeepWalk, message-passing GNNs (GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT), and hybrid combinations. This taxonomy carries the argument: the survey's claim of wider coverage rests on showing that each reviewed method is an instance of one of these four families, and that the families are distinct in how they extract knowledge from heterogeneous biological graphs.

What would settle it

A reproducible literature search for network-based DTI prediction from 2020 to 2024, with explicit queries and inclusion rules, would settle the coverage claim; if it surfaces a substantial method family missing from the four categories—for instance knowledge-graph embedding approaches built on heterogeneous links, several of which the survey itself cites as excluded—then the survey's 'wider range' claim would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that DTI prediction has converged on heterogeneous-network graph learning, and that the resulting methods divide into four recognizable families. It further claims that the regression formulation—predicting binding affinity rather than a binary interaction label—is the more meaningful task, because DTI datasets are incomplete and binary classifiers cannot distinguish true negatives from missing labels. The survey presents the common benchmark datasets (Yamanishi, Luo's, KIBA, Davis), the evaluation metrics appropriate for imbalanced data, and, for each reviewed method, its overall framework, contribution, dataset, and source-code link. Its contribution is organizational: a reader can use it to identify which graph-based approach fits a given prediction problem and what the field currently treats as unsolved.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's map of the field is only as reliable as the undeclared selection of papers it reviews, since it gives no search databases, query terms, inclusion criteria, or exclusion rules and explicitly sets aside several network-based methods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A reader can choose a method family by requirement: random walks for cheap topology-based embeddings, GNNs for structure-aware representations, metapaths for explicit biological semantics, and hybrids for combining multiple signal types.
  • Because affinity regression is presented as the more meaningful task, the KIBA and Davis benchmarks should be extended to include heterogeneous associations such as drug–disease, drug–drug, and protein–disease links.
  • Evaluation practice should shift from accuracy toward AUPR, F1-score, and MCC, and papers reporting AUPR should also report precision and recall separately.
  • Generalization claims should be tested inductively and across datasets, for instance by training on Luo's dataset and testing on an extended version, to prevent data leakage.
  • Future models should provide uncertainty estimates, since wet-lab validation is expensive and point predictions alone are hard to act on.
  • Adoption of predicted protein 3D structure, via tools such as AlphaFold, is expected to improve both accuracy and generalization once structure coverage ceases to be a barrier.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reviewed selection is representative, the trend toward metapath and hybrid methods suggests that explicit biological semantics remain valuable even as GNNs automate representation learning, so the next generation of models may combine both rather than replace metapaths with pure message passing.
  • The paper itself notes that several network-based methods are excluded from its taxonomy, which implies the four-family map may be incomplete; a fuller map would need to place knowledge-graph embedding and other heterogeneous-network deep learning approaches relative to these families.
  • Because the survey reports that the large BETA benchmark is overlooked, a testable extension is to re-run the reviewed methods on BETA's seven validation tasks to see whether current performance rankings change under a broader evaluation protocol.
  • The source-code links collected in the tables would allow a direct reproducibility comparison across families, which the survey does not perform; such a benchmark would be a natural follow-up.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of graph machine learning methods for drug-target interaction (DTI) prediction, organized around heterogeneous biological networks. It provides definitions of heterogeneous networks, metapaths, and GNN components; describes benchmark datasets (Yamanishi, Luo, Davis, KIBA) and evaluation metrics; and then groups selected methods into random walk-based, GNN-based, metapath-based, and hybrid categories, with tables summarizing each method's graph mining technique, dataset, contribution, and source-code link. The survey closes with data-related and method-related future challenges. The abstract claims comprehensive coverage of graph-ML DTI methods and a wider range of methods than prior reviews.

Significance. If the survey's coverage were representative, the manuscript would be a useful entry point for practitioners seeking a 2020-2024 overview of graph-based DTI prediction, particularly because the tables consistently list source-code links and datasets. The taxonomy (random-walk, GNN, metapath, hybrid) is clear, and the emphasis on negative-sample selection, over-smoothing, and evaluation metrics is valuable. However, the central 'comprehensive/wider range' claim currently rests on an undeclared literature selection: the paper gives no search protocol and explicitly excludes several recent network-based methods. Because the survey's usefulness as a reference depends on this claim, the significance is presently conditional on the authors documenting or softening their scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 'Network-based methods in DTI prediction'] The central claim that the survey 'provides comprehensive details' and 'includes a wider range of methods and approaches' than prior reviews [43-46] is not backed by any documented selection protocol. The paper states no search databases, query terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or screening process, and it explicitly excludes the network-based methods in [31,47-51], several of which (e.g., the knowledge-graph method [49] and arbitrary-order proximity deep forest [48]) fall within the survey's own network-based scope. As written, a reader cannot distinguish deliberate scope from omission, so the comprehensiveness claim is unverifiable; please add a literature search and screening description, or revise the abstract and the 'wider range' claim to a clearly scoped selection.
  2. [Discussion and future challenges, method-related challenges] The statement that 'MHGNN and AMGDTI have AUC and AUPR of over 97% on Lou's dataset' is given without a citation, table, or specification of the evaluation split. Because the survey itself reports no performance numbers elsewhere, this claim cannot be checked; please remove it or replace it with a reference to the original papers and their reported metrics for the specific dataset version and split.
  3. [Section 'GNN-based methods', Table 7] The manuscript's title and most of its framing concern heterogeneous networks, but Table 7 includes methods applied only to drug molecular graphs and protein sequences without any heterogeneous network (e.g., GraphDTA, DGraphDTA, GEFA). The introduction should explicitly explain how these single-graph methods fit within the 'heterogeneous networks' scope, or the title and framing should be broadened to 'graph-based methods'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are unresolved placeholder references ('Error! Reference source not found.') for Figure 3, Figure 4, Table 2, Equation (6), and other locations; these must be fixed before publication.
  2. [Discussion and future challenges] The dataset named after Luo is consistently spelled 'Lou's dataset' in the Discussion section; please standardize to 'Luo's dataset' to match the rest of the paper and the cited reference [32].
  3. [Equation (10)] The definition of r_m^2 is incomplete: r_0^2 is not defined, and the expression under the square root requires a stated condition (or absolute value) to remain real; please add the definitions and conditions.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption ends mid-sentence ('...the light blue node.'); it should be completed to describe what the alpha values represent after the walk transitions from the green node to the purple node.
  5. [Table 3 and Table 4] The text introducing Luo's dataset says the details 'are presented in and Table 4,' omitting the table number for the node details; please insert the correct cross-reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Survey's descriptive content is fully drawn from external sources; no derivation, prediction, or self-citation chain to reduce, so circularity score is 0.

full rationale

This paper is a literature survey with no derived equations, fitted parameters, or new predictive entities that could be circularly constructed. Every substantive claim is a description or summary of externally published methods, datasets, and metrics, and the paper does not invoke a self-citation chain or a uniqueness theorem to justify its taxonomy. The claim that the survey 'includes a wider range of methods and approaches' than prior reviews is a coverage assertion, not a derivation: it may be under-supported because the paper does not document search or inclusion criteria, but under-support is a completeness and correctness concern, not circularity. Likewise, the explicit exclusion of some network-based methods ([31,47-51]) weakens the 'comprehensive' claim but does not make any argument equivalent to its own input. Because no load-bearing step reduces to a fitted input, a self-citation, or a definitional identity, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a descriptive review, so no free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The review rests on two domain assumptions: the selected literature is representative, and the authors' characterizations of primary papers are accurate.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The surveyed papers (mainly 2020-2024) are representative and sufficient for a 'comprehensive' overview.
    The abstract and Section 4 claim comprehensive and wide coverage, but no search strategy or inclusion criteria are documented.
  • domain assumption The survey's secondary characterizations of each cited method are accurate.
    The paper's main content is interpretation of other papers; if a characterization is wrong, the survey misleads readers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heterogeneous networks in drug-target interaction prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LP4T6VHY

@misc{pith2026250416152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heterogeneous networks in drug-target interaction prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LP4T6VHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16152}
}
read the original abstract

Drug discovery requires a tremendous amount of time and cost. Computational drug-target interaction prediction, a significant part of this process, can reduce these requirements by narrowing the search space for wet lab experiments. In this survey, we provide comprehensive details of graph machine learning-based methods in predicting drug-target interaction, as they have shown promising results in this field. These details include the overall framework, main contribution, datasets, and their source codes. The selected papers were mainly published from 2020 to 2024. Prior to discussing papers, we briefly introduce the datasets commonly used with these methods and measurements to assess their performance. Finally, future challenges and some crucial areas that need to be explored are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Ye, C.-Y

    Q. Ye, C.-Y. Hsieh, Z. Yang, Y. Kang, J. Chen, D. Cao, S. He, T. Hou, A unified drug –target interaction prediction framework based on knowledge graph and recommendation system, Nat. Commun. 12 (2021)

    2021

  2. [48]

    X. Zeng, S. Zhu, Y. Hou, P. Zhang, L. Li, J. Li, L.F. Huang, S.J. Lewis, R. Nussinov, F. Cheng, Network - based prediction of drug–target interactions using an arbitrary-order proximity embedded deep forest, Bioinformatics 36 (2020) 2805–2812. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa010

    work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa010 2020

  3. [1]

    Sinha, D

    S. Sinha, D. Vohora, Chapter 2 - Drug Discovery and Development: An Overview, (2018) 19–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802103-3.00002-X

    doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802103-3.00002-x 2018

  4. [2]

    Kraljevic, P.J

    S. Kraljevic, P.J. Stambrook, K. Pavelic, Accelerating drug discovery, EMBO Rep. 5 (2004) 837 –842. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400236

    doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400236 2004

  5. [3]

    R. Chen, X. Liu, S. Jin, J. Lin, J. Liu, Machine Learning for Drug-Target Interaction Prediction, Molecules 23 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23092208

    doi:10.3390/molecules23092208 2018

  6. [4]

    S. Khot, S. Naykude, P. Adnaik, An overview of drug drug development process: Short Communication, J. Pharma Insights Res. 1 (2023) 67–74. https://jopir.in/index.php/journals/article/view/37

    2023

  7. [5]

    Ashburn, K.B

    T.T. Ashburn, K.B. Thor, Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3 (2004) 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1468

    doi:10.1038/nrd1468 2004

  8. [6]

    Abels, M

    C. Abels, M. Soeberdt, Can we teach old drugs new tricks?—Repurposing of neuropharmacological drugs for inflammatory skin diseases, Exp. Dermatol. 28 (2019) 1002–1009. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.13987

    doi:10.1111/exd.13987 2019

Show all 152 references
  1. [7]

    Bagherian, E

    M. Bagherian, E. Sabeti, K. Wang, M.A. Sartor, Z. Nikolovska-Coleska, K. Najarian, Machine learning approaches and databases for prediction of drug–target interaction: a survey paper, Brief. Bioinform. 22 (2021) 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz157

    2021 doi

  2. [8]

    Sotiropoulou, E

    G. Sotiropoulou, E. Zingkou, G. Pampalakis, Redirecting drug repositioning to discover innovat ive cosmeceuticals, Exp. Dermatol. 30 (2021) 628–644. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.14299

    2021 doi

  3. [9]

    Sardana, C

    D. Sardana, C. Zhu, M. Zhang, R.C. Gudivada, L. Yang, A.G. Jegga, Drug repositioning for orphan diseases, Brief. Bioinform. 12 (2011) 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbr021

    2011 doi

  4. [10]

    Xia, L.-Y

    Z. Xia, L.-Y. Wu, X. Zhou, S.T.C. Wong, Semi-supervised drug-protein interaction prediction from heterogeneous biological spaces, BMC Syst. Biol. 4 (2010) S6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752 -0509-4-S2-S6

    2010 doi

  5. [11]

    L. Hood, L. Rowen, The Human Genome Project: big science transforms biology and medicine, Genome Med. 5 (2013) 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/gm483

    2013 doi

  6. [12]

    Lomenick, R.W

    B. Lomenick, R.W. Olsen, J. Huang, Identification of Direct Protein Targets of Small Molecules, ACS Chem. Biol. 6 (2011) 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1021/cb100294v

    2011 doi

  7. [13]

    Middha, T

    S.K. Middha, T. Usha, S. Sukhralia, C. Pareek, R. Yadav, R. Agnihotri, J. Tasneem, A.K. Goyal, D. Babu, Chapter 23 - Prediction of drug–target interaction —a helping hand in drug repurposing, in: A. Parihar, R. Khan, A. Kumar, A.K. Kaushik, H.B.T.-C.A. for N.T. and D.D. to M.S...

    2022 doi

  8. [14]

    Pahikkala, A

    T. Pahikkala, A. Airola, S. Pietilä, S. Shakyawar, A. Szwajda, J. Tang, T. Aittokallio, Toward more realistic drug–target interaction predictions, Brief. Bioinform. 16 (2015) 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbu010

    2015 doi

  9. [15]

    Thafar, M

    M.A. Thafar, M. Alshahrani, S. Albaradei, T. Gojobori, M. Essack, X. Gao, Affinity2 Vec: drug-target binding affinity prediction through representation learning, graph mining, and machine learning, Sci. Rep. 12 (2022) 4751. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08787-9

    2022 doi

  10. [16]

    Mikolov, K

    T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, J. Dean, Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv1301.3781 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  11. [17]

    C. Knox, M. Wilson, C.M. Klinger, M. Franklin, E. Oler, A. Wilson, A. Pon, J. Cox, N.E. (Lucy) Chin, S.A. Strawbridge, M. Garcia-Patino, R. Kruger, A. Sivakumaran, S. Sanford, R. Doshi, N. Khetarpal, O. Fatokun, D. Doucet, A. Zubkowski, D.Y. Rayat, H. Jackson, K. Harford, A. A...

    2024

  12. [18]

    Interdonato, M

    R. Interdonato, M. Atzmueller, S. Gaito, R. Kanawati, C. Largeron, A. Sala, Feature-rich networks: going beyond complex network topologies, Appl. Netw. Sci. 4 (2019) 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109 -019-0111- x

    2019 doi

  13. [19]

    Y. Dong, N. V Chawla, A. Swami, metapath2vec: Scalable Representation Learning for Heterog eneous Networks, in: Proc. 23rd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017: pp. 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097983.3098036

    2017

  14. [20]

    Grover, J

    A. Grover, J. Leskovec, node2vec: Scalable Feature Learning for Networks, in: Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016: pp. 855–864. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939754

    2016

  15. [21]

    Wang, A survey on graph neural networks, EAI Endorsed Trans

    J. Wang, A survey on graph neural networks, EAI Endorsed Trans. e-Learning 8 (2023) e6. https://doi.org/10.4108/eetel.3466

    2023 doi

  16. [22]

    T.N. Kipf, M. Welling, Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks, in: Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., 2017

    2017

  17. [23]

    Hamilton, Z

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, J. Leskovec, Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs, in: I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, R. Garnett (Eds.), Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. https://proceedings.neurips...

    2017

  18. [24]

    Veličković, G

    P. Veličković, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Liò, Y. Bengio, Graph Attention Networks, in: Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., 2018. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJXMpikCZ

    2018

  19. [25]

    Yamanishi, M

    Y. Yamanishi, M. Araki, A. Gutteridge, W. Honda, M. Kanehisa, Prediction of drug–target interaction networks from the integration of chemical and genomic spaces, Bioinformatics 24 (2008) i232 –i240. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn162

    2008 doi

  20. [26]

    Kanehisa, S

    M. Kanehisa, S. Goto, M. Hattori, K.F. Aoki-Kinoshita, M. Itoh, S. Kawashima, T. Katayama, M. Araki, M. Hirakawa, From genomics to chemical genomics: new developments in KEGG, Nucleic Acids Res. 34 (2006) D354–D357. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkj102

    2006 doi

  21. [27]

    Schomburg, A

    I. Schomburg, A. Chang, C. Ebeling, M. Gremse, C. Heldt, G. Huhn, D. Schomburg, BRENDA, the enzyme database: updates and major new developments, Nucleic Acids Res. 32 (2004) D431 –D433. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh081

    2004 doi

  22. [28]

    Günther, M

    S. Günther, M. Kuhn, M. Dunkel, M. Campillos, C. Senger, E. Petsalaki, J. Ahmed, E.G. Urdiales, A. Gewiess, L.J. Jensen, R. Schneider, R. Skoblo, R.B. Russell, P.E. Bourne, P. Bork, R. Preissner, SuperTarget and Matador: resources for exploring drug-target relationships, Nucle...

    2008 doi

  23. [29]

    Wishart, C

    D.S. Wishart, C. Knox, A.C. Guo, D. Cheng, S. Shrivastava, D. Tzur, B. Gautam, M. Hassanali, DrugBank: a knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets, Nucleic Acids Res. 36 (2008 ) D901–D906. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm958

    2008 doi

  24. [30]

    Ren, Z.-H

    Z.-H. Ren, Z.-H. You, Q. Zou, C.-Q. Yu, Y.-F. Ma, Y.-J. Guan, H.-R. You, X.-F. Wang, J. Pan, DeepMPF: deep learning framework for predicting drug–target interactions based on multi-modal representation with meta-path semantic analysis, J. Transl. Med. 21 (2023) 48. https://doi...

    2023 doi

  25. [31]

    Y. Chu, X. Shan, T. Chen, M. Jiang, Y. Wang, Q. Wang, D.R. Salahub, Y. Xiong, D. -Q. Wei, DTI-MLCD: predicting drug-target interactions using multi-label learning with community detection method, Brief. Bioinform. 22 (2021) bbaa205. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaa205

    2021 doi

  26. [32]

    Y. Luo, X. Zhao, J. Zhou, J. Yang, Y. Zhang, W. Kuang, J. Peng, L. Chen, J. Zeng, A network integration approach for drug-target interaction prediction and computational drug repositioning from heterogeneous information, Nat. Commun. 8 (2017) 573. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146...

    2017 doi

  27. [33]

    C. Knox, V. Law, T. Jewison, P. Liu, S. Ly, A. Frolkis, A. Pon, K. Banco, C. Mak, V. Neveu, Y. Djoumbou, R. Eisner, A.C. Guo, D.S. Wishart, DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for ‘Omics’ research on drugs, Nucleic Acids Res. 39 (2011) D1035–D1041. https://doi.org/10.1093/n...

    2011 doi

  28. [34]

    Keshava Prasad, R

    T.S. Keshava Prasad, R. Goel, K. Kandasamy, S. Keerthikumar, S. Kumar, S. Mathivanan, D. Telikicherla, R. Raju, B. Shafreen, A. Venugopal, L. Balakrishnan, A. Marimuthu, S. Banerjee, D.S. Somanathan, A. Sebastian, S. Rani, S. Ray, C.J. Harrys Kishore, S. Kanth, M. Ahmed, M.K. ...

    2009

  29. [35]

    Davis, C.G

    A.P. Davis, C.G. Murphy, R. Johnson, J.M. Lay, K. Lennon-Hopkins, C. Saraceni-Richards, D. Sciaky, B.L. King, M.C. Rosenstein, T.C. Wiegers, C.J. Mattingly, The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database: update 2013, Nucleic Acids Res. 41 (2013) D1104–D1114. https://doi.org/10.1093/...

    2013 doi

  30. [36]

    M. Kuhn, M. Campillos, I. Letunic, L.J. Jensen, P. Bork, A side effect resource to capture phenotypic effects of drugs, Mol. Syst. Biol. 6 (2010) 343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2009.98

    2010 doi

  31. [37]

    Davis, J.P

    M.I. Davis, J.P. Hunt, S. Herrgard, P. Ciceri, L.M. Wodicka, G. Pallares, M. Hocker, D.K. Treiber, P.P. Zarrinkar, Comprehensive analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity, Nat. Biotechnol. 29 (2011) 1046 –1051. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1990

    2011 doi

  32. [38]

    J. Tang, A. Szwajda, S. Shakyawar, T. Xu, P. Hintsanen, K. Wennerberg, T. Aittokallio, Making Sense of Large-Scale Kinase Inhibitor Bioactivity Data Sets: A Comparative and Integrative Analysis, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54 (2014) 735–743. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci400709d

    2014 doi

  33. [39]

    Chicco, G

    D. Chicco, G. Jurman, The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation, BMC Genomics 21 (2020) 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864 - 019-6413-7

    2020 doi

  34. [40]

    Boyd, K.H

    K. Boyd, K.H. Eng, C.D. Page, Area under the Precision-Recall Curve: Point Estimates and Confidence Intervals BT - Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, in: H. Blockeel, K. Kersting, S. Nijssen, F. Železný (Eds.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg...

    2013

  35. [41]

    Gönen, G

    M. Gönen, G. Heller, Concordance probability and discriminatory power in proportional hazards regression, Biometrika 92 (2005) 965–970. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/92.4.965

    2005 doi

  36. [42]

    K. Roy, P. Chakraborty, I. Mitra, P.K. Ojha, S. Kar, R.N. Das, Some case studies o n application of “r2” metrics for judging quality of quantitative structure–activity relationship predictions: Emphasis on scaling of response data, J. Comput. Chem. 34 (2013) 1071–1082. https:/...

    2013 doi

  37. [43]

    Cheng, C

    F. Cheng, C. Liu, J. Jiang, W. Lu, W. Li, G. Liu, W. Zhou, J. Huang, Y. Tang, Prediction of Drug -Target Interactions and Drug Repositioning via Network-Based Inference, PLOS Comput. Biol. 8 (2012) e1002503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002503

    2012 doi

  38. [44]

    Zhang, L

    Z. Zhang, L. Chen, F. Zhong, D. Wang, J. Jiang, S. Zhang, H. Jiang, M. Zheng, X. Li, Graph neural network approaches for drug-target interactions, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 73 (2022) 102327. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2021.102327

    2022

  39. [45]

    Z. Wu, W. Li, G. Liu, Y. Tang, Network-Based Methods for Prediction of Drug-Target Interactions, Front. Pharmacol. Volume 9- (2018). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.01134

    2018

  40. [46]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Hu, N. Han, A. Yang, X. Liu, H. Cai, A survey of drug-target interaction and affinity prediction methods via graph neural networks, Comput. Biol. Med. 163 (2023) 107136. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107136

    2023

  41. [47]

    X. Zeng, S. Zhu, W. Lu, Z. Liu, J. Huang, Y. Zhou, J. Fang, Y. Huang, H. Guo, L. Li, B.D. Trapp, R. Nussinov, C. Eng, J. Loscalzo, F. Cheng, Target identification among known drugs by deep learning from heterogeneous networks, Chem. Sci. 11 (2020) 1775–1797. https://doi.org/10...

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    D. Zhou, Z. Xu, W. Li, X. Xie, S. Peng, MultiDTI: drug–target interaction prediction based on multi-modal representation learning to bridge the gap between new chemical entities and known heterogeneous network, Bioinformatics 37 (2021) 4485–4492. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinf...

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    X. Su, P. Hu, H. Yi, Z. You, L. Hu, Predicting Drug-Target Interactions Over Heterogeneous Information Network, IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics 27 (2023) 562–572. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2022.3219213

    2023

  44. [52]

    Q. An, L. Yu, A heterogeneous network embedding framework for predicting similarity -based drug-target interactions, Brief. Bioinform. 22 (2021) bbab275. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbab275

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    J. Peng, Y. Wang, J. Guan, J. Li, R. Han, J. Hao, Z. Wei, X. Shang, An end -to-end heterogeneous graph representation learning-based framework for drug–target interaction prediction, Brief. Bioinform. 22 (2021) bbaa430. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaa430

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Zhang, C

    Q. Zhang, C. He, X. Qin, P. Yang, J. Kong, Y. Mao, D. Li, BiTGNN: Prediction of drug –target interactions based on bidirectional transformer and graph neural network on heterogeneous graph, Int. J. Biomath. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524524500256

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Zhang, Z

    R. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Meng, W. Cui, MHTAN-DTI: Metapath-based hierarchical transformer and attention network for drug–target interaction prediction, Brief. Bioinform. 24 (2023) bbad079. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad079

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Y. Li, G. Qiao, K. Wang, G. Wang, Drug–target interaction predication via multi-channel graph neural networks, Brief. Bioinform. 23 (2022) bbab346. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbab346

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Thafar, R.S

    M.A. Thafar, R.S. Olayan, S. Albaradei, V.B. Bajic, T. Gojobori, M. Essack , X. Gao, DTi2Vec: Drug–target interaction prediction using network embedding and ensemble learning, J. Cheminform. 13 (2021) 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-021-00552-w

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    Li, Z.-H

    Y.-C. Li, Z.-H. You, C.-Q. Yu, L. Wang, L. Wong, L. Hu, P.-W. Hu, Y.-A. Huang, PPAEDTI: Personalized Propagation Auto-Encoder Model for Predicting Drug-Target Interactions, IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics 27 (2023) 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2022.3217433

    2023

  51. [59]

    W. Wang, S. Liang, M. Yu, D. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Wang, Y. Zho u, GCHN-DTI: Predicting drug-target interactions by graph convolution on heterogeneous networks, Methods 206 (2022) 101 –107. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2022.08.016

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    P. Xuan, M. Fan, H. Cui, T. Zhang, T. Nakaguchi, GVDTI: graph con volutional and variational autoencoders with attribute-level attention for drug–protein interaction prediction, Brief. Bioinform. 23 (2022) bbab453. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbab453

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    Willett, Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints, Drug Discov

    P. Willett, Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints, Drug Discov. Today 11 (2006) 1046–

    2006

  54. [62]

    Smith, M.S

    T.F. Smith, M.S. Waterman, Identification of common molecular subsequences, J. Mol. Biol. 147 (1981) 195–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(81)90087-5

    1981 doi

  55. [63]

    M. Jang, S. Seo, P. Kang, Recurrent neural network-based semantic variational autoencoder for Sequence- to-sequence learning, Inf. Sci. (Ny). 490 (2019) 59–73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.03.066

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    Asgari, M.R.K

    E. Asgari, M.R.K. Mofrad, Continuous Distributed Representation of Biological Sequences for Deep Proteomics and Genomics, PLoS One 10 (2015) e0141287. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141287

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    F. Wan, L. Hong, A. Xiao, T. Jiang, J. Zeng, NeoDTI: neural integration of neighbor information from a heterogeneous network for discovering new drug–target interactions, Bioinformatics 35 (2019) 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty543

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    Rogers, M

    D. Rogers, M. Hahn, Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010) 742–754. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci100050t

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    Landrum, Rdkit documentation, (n.d.)

    G. Landrum, Rdkit documentation, (n.d.)

  60. [68]

    K. Shao, Y. Zhang, Y. Wen, Z. Zhang, S. He, X. Bo, DTI-HETA: prediction of drug–target interactions based on GCN and GAT on heterogeneous graph, Brief. Bioinform. 23 (2022) bbac109. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac109

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    Wang, A.M

    B. Wang, A.M. Mezlini, F. Demir, M. Fiume, Z. Tu, M. Brudno, B. Haibe -Kains, A. Goldenberg, Similarity network fusion for aggregating data types on a genomic scale., Nat. Methods 11 (2014) 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2810

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    L. Liu, Q. Zhang, Y. Wei, Q. Zhao, B. Liao, A Biological Feature and Heterogeneous Network Representation Learning-Based Framework for Drug–Target Interaction Prediction, Molecules 28 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28186546

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    M. Wang, X. Lei, L. Liu, J. Chen, F.-X. Wu, GIAE-DTI: Predicting Drug-Target Interactions Based on Heterogeneous Network and GIN-based Graph Autoencoder, IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics (2024) 1–

    2024

  64. [72]

    N. Zong, H. Kim, V. Ngo, O. Harismendy, Deep mining heterogeneous networks of biomedical linked data to predict novel drug–target associations, Bioinformatics 33 (2017) 2337–2344. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx160

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    Perozzi, R

    B. Perozzi, R. Al-Rfou, S. Skiena, DeepWalk: online learning of social representations, in: Proc. 20th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2014: pp. 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1145/2623330.2623732

    2014

  66. [74]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2024.3458794

    2024

  67. [75]

    Friedman, Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine, Ann

    J.H. Friedman, Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine, Ann. Stat. 29 (2001) 1189 –

    2001

  68. [76]

    S. Liu, J. An, J. Zhao, S. Zhao, H. Lv, S. Wang, Drug-Target Interaction Prediction Based on Multisource Information Weighted Fusion, Contrast Media Mol. Imaging 2021 (2021) 6044256. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6044256

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    Zong, R.S.N

    N. Zong, R.S.N. Wong, Y. Yu, A. Wen, M. Huang, N. Li, Drug–target prediction utilizing heterogeneous bio-linked network embeddings, Brief. Bioinform. 22 (2021) 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz147

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    Hattori, Y

    M. Hattori, Y. Okuno, S. Goto, M. Kanehisa, Development of a Chemical Structure Comparison Method for Integrated Analysis of Chemical and Genomic Information in the Metabolic Pathways, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125 (2003) 11853–11865. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja036030u

    2003 doi

  71. [79]

    van Laarhoven, E

    T. van Laarhoven, E. Marchiori, Predicting Drug-Target Interactions for New Drug Compounds Using a Weighted Nearest Neighbor Profile, PLoS One 8 (2013) e66952. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066952

    2013 doi

  72. [80]

    Mei, C.-K

    J.-P. Mei, C.-K. Kwoh, P. Yang, X.-L. Li, J. Zheng, Drug–target interaction prediction by learning from local information and neighbors, Bioinformatics 29 (2013) 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts670

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    H. Cho, B. Berger, J. Peng, Diffusion Component Analysis: Unraveling Functional Topology in Biological Networks BT - Research in Computational Molecular Biology, in: T.M. Przytycka (Ed.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015: pp. 62–64

    2015

  74. [82]

    Belleau, M.-A

    F. Belleau, M.-A. Nolin, N. Tourigny, P. Rigault, J. Morissette, Bio2RDF: Towards a mashup to build bioinformatics knowledge systems, J. Biomed. Inform. 41 (2008) 706–716. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.03.004

    2008 doi

  75. [83]

    Consortium, The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt), Nucleic Acids Res

    T.U. Consortium, The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt), Nucleic Acids Res. 36 (2008) D190 –D195. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm895

    2008 doi

  76. [84]

    Povey, R

    S. Povey, R. Lovering, E. Bruford, M. Wright, M. Lush, H. Wain, The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC), Hum. Genet. 109 (2001) 678–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-001-0615-0

    2001 doi

  77. [85]

    Goh, M.E

    K.-I. Goh, M.E. Cusick, D. Valle, B. Childs, M. Vidal, A.-L. Barabási, The human disease network, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (2007) 8685–8690. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701361104

    2007 doi

  78. [86]

    Kanehisa, S

    M. Kanehisa, S. Goto, KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, Nucleic Acids Res. 28 (2000) 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.27

    2000 doi

  79. [87]

    Bolton, Y

    E.E. Bolton, Y. Wang, P.A. Thiessen, S.H. Bryant, Chapter 12 - PubChem: Integrated Platform of Small Molecules and Biological Activities, in: R.A. Wheeler, D.C.B.T.-A.R. in C.C. Spellmeyer (Eds.), Elsevier, 2008: pp. 217–241. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-1400(...

    2008 doi

  80. [88]

    Bodenreider, The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology, Nucleic Acids Res

    O. Bodenreider, The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology, Nucleic Acids Res. 32 (2004) D267–D270. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh061

    2004 doi

  81. [89]

    Hamosh, A.F

    A. Hamosh, A.F. Scott, J.S. Amberger, C.A. Bocchini, V.A. McKusick, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders, Nucleic Acids Res. 33 (2005) D514–D517. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki033

    2005 doi

  82. [90]

    H. Yang, C. Qin, Y.H. Li, L. Tao, J. Zhou, C.Y. Yu, F. Xu, Z. Chen, F. Zhu, Y.Z. Chen, Therapeutic target database update 2016: enriched resource for bench to clinical drug target and targeted pathway information, Nucleic Acids Res. 44 (2016) D1069–D1074. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

    Gaulton, L.J

    A. Gaulton, L.J. Bellis, A.P. Bento, J. Chambers, M. Davies, A. Hersey, Y. Light, S. McGlinchey, D. Michalovich, B. Al-Lazikani, J.P. Overington, ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery, Nucleic Acids Res. 40 (2012) D1100–D1107. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr777

    2012 doi

  84. [92]

    T. Liu, Y. Lin, X. Wen, R.N. Jorissen, M.K. Gilson, BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein–ligand binding affinities, Nucleic Acids Res. 35 (2007) D198–D201. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl999

    2007 doi

  85. [93]

    Lipscomb, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)., Bull

    C.E. Lipscomb, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)., Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 88 (2000) 265 –266

    2000

  86. [94]

    H. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Xiong, W. Zhang, A heterogeneous network -based method with attentive meta-path extraction for predicting drug–target interactions, Brief. Bioinform. 23 (2022) bbac184. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac184

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    Nguyen, H

    T. Nguyen, H. Le, T.P. Quinn, T. Nguyen, T.D. Le, S. Venkatesh, GraphDTA: predicting drug–target binding affinity with graph neural networks, Bioinformatics 37 (2021) 1140 –1147. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa921

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    Ramsundar, P

    B. Ramsundar, P. Eastman, P. Walters, V. Pande, Deep Learning for the Life Sciences: Applying Deep Learning to Genomics, Microscopy, Drug Discovery, and More, O’Reilly Media, 2019. https://books.google.com/books?id=5uiRDwAAQBAJ

    2019

  89. [97]

    Pawson, J.L

    A.J. Pawson, J.L. Sharman, H.E. Benson, E. Faccenda, S.P.H. Alexander, O.P. Buneman, A.P. Davenport, J.C. McGrath, J.A. Peters, C. Southan, M. Spedding, W. Yu, A.J. Harmar, NC-IUPHAR, The IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY: an expert-driven knowledgebase of drug targets and thei...

    2014 doi

  90. [98]

    P. Bai, F. Miljković, B. John, H. Lu, Interpretable bilinear attention network with domain adaptation improves drug–target prediction, Nat. Mach. Intell. 5 (2023) 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022- 00605-1

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    M. Gao, D. Zhang, Y. Chen, Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Wang, S. Li, Y. Guo, G.I. Webb, A.T.N. Nguyen, L. May, J. Song, GraphormerDTI: A graph transformer-based approach for drug-target interaction prediction, Comput. Biol. Med. 173 (2024) 108339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024

  92. [100]

    Jiang, Z

    M. Jiang, Z. Li, S. Zhang, S. Wang, X. Wang, Q. Yuan, Z. Wei, Drug–target affinity prediction using graph neural network and contact maps, RSC Adv. 10 (2020) 20701–20712. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA02297G

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, S. Jegelka, How powerful are graph neu ral networks?, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv1810.00826 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Nguyen, T

    T.M. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, T.M. Le, T. Tran, GEFA: Early Fusion Approach i n Drug-Target Affinity Prediction, IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinforma. 19 (2022) 718 –728. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2021.3094217

    2022

  95. [105]

    Michel, D

    M. Michel, D. Menéndez Hurtado, A. Elofsson, PconsC4: fast, accurate and hassle-free contact predictions, Bioinformatics 35 (2018) 2677–2679. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1036

    2018 doi

  96. [106]

    Y. Shi, Z. Huang, S. Feng, H. Zhong, W. Wang, Y. Sun, Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv2009.03509 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  97. [107]

    B. Jing, S. Eismann, P. Suriana, R.J.L. Townshend, R. Dror, Learning from protein structure with geometric vector perceptrons, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv2009.01411 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  98. [108]

    H. Wu, J. Liu, T. Jiang, Q. Zou, S. Qi, Z. Cui, P. Tiwari, Y. Ding, AttentionMGT -DTA: A multi-modal drug-target affinity prediction using graph transformer and attention mechanism, Neural Networks 169 (2024) 623–636. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2023.11.018

    2024 doi

  99. [109]

    Y. Luo, Y. Liu, J. Peng, Calibrated geometric deep learning improves kinase–drug binding predictions, Nat. Mach. Intell. 5 (2023) 1390–1401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00751-0

    2023 doi

  100. [110]

    Z. Lin, H. Akin, R. Rao, B. Hie, Z. Zhu, W. Lu, N. Smetanin, R. Verkuil, O. Kabeli, Y. Shmueli, A. dos Santos Costa, M. Fazel-Zarandi, T. Sercu, S. Candido, A. Rives, Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic- level protein structure with a language model, Science (80-. ). 379 (...

    2023 doi

  101. [111]

    Marinka Zitnik Rok Sosič, J

    S.M. Marinka Zitnik Rok Sosič, J. Leskovec, {BioSNAP Datasets}: {Stanford} Biomedical Network Dataset Collection, (2018)

    2018

  102. [112]

    Tsubaki, K

    M. Tsubaki, K. Tomii, J. Sese, Compound–protein interaction prediction with end-to-end learning of neural networks for graphs and sequences, Bioinformatics 35 (2019) 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty535

    2019 doi

  103. [113]

    Jumper, R

    J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Figurnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. Žídek, A. Potapenko, A. Bridgland, C. Meyer, S.A.A. Kohl, A.J. Ballard, A. Cowie, B. Romera -Paredes, S. Nikolov, R. Jain, J. Adler, T. Back, S. Petersen, D. Reiman, E. Cla...

    2021

  104. [114]

    Q. Feng, E. Dueva, A. Cherkasov, M. Ester, Padme: A deep learning-based framework for drug-target interaction prediction, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv1807.09741 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  105. [115]

    Zhao, X.-R

    B.-W. Zhao, X.-R. Su, P.-W. Hu, Y.-A. Huang, Z.-H. You, L. Hu, iGRLDTI: an improved graph representation learning method for predicting drug–target interactions over heterogeneous biological information network, Bioinformatics 39 (2023) btad451. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinfo...

    2023 doi

  106. [116]

    Zhang, M

    W. Zhang, M. Yang, Z. Sheng, Y. Li, W. Ouyang, Y. Tao, Z. Yang, B. CUI, Node Dependent Local Smoothing for Scalable Graph Learning, in: M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, J.W. Vaughan (Eds.), Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Curran Associates, Inc., 2021: pp. ...

    2021

  107. [117]

    Metz, E.F

    J.T. Metz, E.F. Johnson, N.B. Soni, P.J. Merta, L. Kifle, P.J. Hajduk, Nav igating the kinome, Nat. Chem. Biol. 7 (2011) 200–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.530

    2011 doi

  108. [118]

    J. Shen, J. Zhang, X. Luo, W. Zhu, K. Yu, K. Chen, Y. Li, H. Jiang, Predicting protein–protein interactions based only on sequences information, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (2007) 4337 –4341. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607879104

    2007 doi

  109. [119]

    B. Yang, Y. Liu, J. Wu, F. Bai, M. Zheng, J. Zheng, GENNDTI: Drug -Target Interaction Prediction Using Graph Neural Network Enhanced by Router Nodes, IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics 28 (2024) 7588 –

    2024

  110. [120]

    T. Zhao, Y. Hu, L.R. Valsdottir, T. Zang, J. Peng, Identifying drug–target interactions based on graph convolutional network and deep neural network, Brief. Bioinform. 22 (2021) 2141 –2150. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaa044

    2021 doi

  111. [121]

    Cheng, D

    Z. Cheng, D. Xu, D. Ding, Y. Ding, Prediction of Drug-Target Interactions With High- Quality Negative Samples and a Network-Based Deep Learning Framework, IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics 29 (2025) 1567–1578. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2024.3354953

    2025

  112. [122]

    Gasteiger, A

    J. Gasteiger, A. Bojchevski, S. Günnemann, Predict then propagate: Graph neural networks meet personalized pagerank, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv1810.05997 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  113. [123]

    W. Wang, S. Yang, J. Li, Drug target predictions based on heterogeneous graph inference., in: Pacific Symp. Biocomput., World Scientific, 2013: pp. 53–64

    2013

  114. [124]

    Ba-alawi, O

    W. Ba-alawi, O. Soufan, M. Essack, P. Kalnis, V.B. Bajic, DASPfind: new efficient method to predict drug – target interactions, J. Cheminform. 8 (2016) 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321 -016-0128-4

    2016 doi

  115. [125]

    Binns, E

    D. Binns, E. Dimmer, R. Huntley, D. Barrell, C. O’Donovan, R. Apweiler, QuickGO: a web-based tool for Gene Ontology searching, Bioinformatics 25 (2009) 3045–3046. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp536

    2009 doi

  116. [126]

    Veleiro, J

    U. Veleiro, J. de la Fuente, G. Serrano, M. Pizurica, M. Casals, A. Pineda-Lucena, S. Vicent, I. Ochoa, O. Gevaert, M. Hernaez, GeNNius: an ultrafast drug–target interaction inference method based on graph neural networks, Bioinformatics 40 (2024) btad774. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024 doi

  117. [127]

    Martens, A

    M. Martens, A. Ammar, A. Riutta, A. Waagmeester, D.N. Slenter, K. Hanspers, R. A. Miller, D. Digles, E.N. Lopes, F. Ehrhart, L.J. Dupuis, L.A. Winckers, S.L. Coort, E.L. Willighagen, C.T. Evelo, A.R. Pico, M. Kutmon, WikiPathways: connecting communities, Nucleic Acids Res. 49 ...

    2021 doi

  118. [128]

    Szklarczyk, A.L

    D. Szklarczyk, A.L. Gable, D. Lyon, A. Junge, S. Wyder, J. Huerta-Cepas, M. Simonovic, N.T. Doncheva, J.H. Morris, P. Bork, L.J. Jensen, C. von Mering, STRING v11: protein –protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide exp...

    2019 doi

  119. [129]

    S. Yun, M. Jeong, R. Kim, J. Kang, H.J. Kim, Graph Transformer Networks, in: H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d\textquotesingle Alché-Buc, E. Fox, R. Garnett (Eds.), Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/pap...

    2019

  120. [130]

    C. Shi, Y. Li, J. Zhang, Y. Sun, P.S. Yu, A survey of heterogeneous information network analysis, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 29 (2017) 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2016.2598561

    2017

  121. [131]

    Gillespie, B

    M. Gillespie, B. Jassal, R. Stephan, M. Milacic, K. Rothfels, A. Senff-Ribeiro, J. Griss, C. Sevilla, L. Matthews, C. Gong, C. Deng, T. Varusai, E. Ragueneau, Y. Haider, B. May, V. Shamovsky, J. Weiser, T. Brunson, N. Sanati, L. Beckman, X. Shao, A. Fabregat, K. Sidiropoulos, ...

    2022

  122. [132]

    G. Fu, Y. Ding, A. Seal, B. Chen, Y. Sun, E. Bolton, Predicting drug target interactions using meta -path- based semantic network analysis, BMC Bioinformatics 17 (2016) 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859 -016- 1005-x

    2016 doi

  123. [133]

    H. Shi, S. Liu, J. Chen, X. Li, Q. Ma, B. Yu, Predicting drug-target interactions using Lasso with random forest based on evolutionary information and chemical structure, Genomics 111 (2019) 1839–1852. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2018.12.007

    2019 doi

  124. [134]

    Huang, C

    K. Huang, C. Xiao, L.M. Glass, M. Zitnik, J. Sun, SkipGNN: predicting molecular interactions with skip- graph networks, Sci. Rep. 10 (2020) 21092. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598 -020-77766-9

    2020 doi

  125. [135]

    Y. Li, G. Qiao, X. Gao, G. Wang, Supervised graph co-contrastive learning for drug–target interaction prediction, Bioinformatics 38 (2022) 2847–2854. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac164

    2022 doi

  126. [136]

    M. Li, X. Cai, S. Xu, H. Ji, Metapath-aggregated heterogeneous graph neural network for drug–target interaction prediction, Brief. Bioinform. 24 (2023) bbac578. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac578

    2023 doi

  127. [137]

    J. Li, J. Wang, H. Lv, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, IMCHGAN: Inductive Matrix Completion With Heterogeneous Graph Attention Networks for Drug-Target Interactions Prediction, IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinforma. 19 (2022) 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2021.3088614

    2022

  128. [138]

    Y. Su, Z. Hu, F. Wang, Y. Bin, C. Zheng, H. Li, H. Chen, X. Zeng, AMGDTI: drug –target interaction prediction based on adaptive meta-graph learning in heterogeneous network, Brief. Bioinform. 25 (2024) bbad474. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad474

    2024 doi

  129. [139]

    F. Wu, A. Souza, T. Zhang, C. Fifty, T. Yu, K. Weinberger, Simplifying Graph Convolutional Networks, in: K. Chaudhuri, R. Salakhutdinov (Eds.), Proc. 36th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., PMLR, 2019: pp. 6861–6871. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/wu19e.html

    2019

  130. [140]

    Z. Liu, Q. Chen, W. Lan, H. Pan, X. Hao, S. Pan, GADTI: Graph Autoencoder Approach for DTI Prediction From Heterogeneous Network, Front. Genet. 12 (2021). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.650821

    2021

  131. [141]

    Q. Ning, Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, J. Sun, L. Jiang, K. Wang, M. Yin, DMHGNN: Double multi -view heterogeneous graph neural network framework for drug-target interaction prediction, Artif. Intell. Med. 159 (2025) 103023. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2024.103023

    2025

  132. [142]

    Jiang, J

    L. Jiang, J. Sun, Y. Wang, Q. Ning, N. Luo, M. Yin, Identifying drug–target interactions via heterogeneous graph attention networks combined with cross-modal similarities, Brief. Bioinform. 23 (2022) bbac016. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac016

    2022 doi

  133. [143]

    Zheng, H

    Y. Zheng, H. Peng, X. Zhang, X. Gao, J. Li, Predicting Drug Targets from Heterogeneous Spaces using Anchor Graph Hashing and Ensemble Learning, in: 2018 Int. Jt. Conf. Neural Networks, 2018: pp. 1 –7. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2018.8489028

    2018

  134. [144]

    N. Zong, N. Li, A. Wen, V. Ngo, Y. Yu, M. Huang, S. Chowdhury, C. Jiang, S. Fu, R. Weinshilboum, G. Jiang, L. Hunter, H. Liu, BETA: a comprehensive benchmark for computational drug –target prediction, Brief. Bioinform. 23 (2022) bbac199. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac199

    2022 doi

  135. [145]

    de la Fuente, G

    J. de la Fuente, G. Serrano, U. Veleiro, M. Casals, L. Vera, M. Pizurica, N. G ómez-Cebrián, L. Puchades- Carrasco, A. Pineda-Lucena, I. Ochoa, S. Vicent, O. Gevaert, M. Hernaez, Towards a more inductive world for drug repurposing approaches, Nat. Mach. Intell. 7 (2025) 495–50...

    2025 doi

  136. [146]

    B. Yang, W. Yih, X. He, J. Gao, L. Deng, Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv1412.6575 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  137. [147]

    Tanoli, S

    Z. Tanoli, S. Aron, T. and Aittokallio, Validation guidelines for drug -target prediction methods, Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 20 (2025) 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2024.2430955

    2025

  138. [148]

    Angelopoulos, S

    A.N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, Conformal Prediction: A Gentle Introduction, Found. Trends® Mach. Learn. 16 (2023) 494–591. https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000101

    2023 doi

  139. [149]

    Abramson, J

    J. Abramson, J. Adler, J. Dunger, R. Evans, T. Green, A. Pritzel, O. Ronneberger, L. Willmore, A.J. Ballard, J. Bambrick, S.W. Bodenstein, D.A. Evans, C.-C. Hung, M. O’Neill, D. Reiman, K. Tunyasuvunakool, Z. Wu, A. Žemgulytė, E. Arvaniti, C. Beattie, O. Bertolli, A. Bridgland...

    2024

  140. [151]

    Bechler-Speicher, A

    M. Bechler-Speicher, A. Globerson, R. Gilad-Bachrach, The Intelligible and Effective Graph Neural Additive Network, in: A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, C. Zhang (Eds.), Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Curran Associates, Inc., 2024: pp. 905...

    2024

  141. [1053]

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2006.10.005

    2006 doi

  142. [1232]

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/2699986

  143. [6775]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27137-3

    doi

  144. [7598]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2024.3402529

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.